Yea, we need to start deciding what innocient country we are going to attack next. I mean at this rate, world domination will take a century.

Problem is no other country could do to the US like the US did to Iraq. Let us make a deal next time your country is threatened don't bother asking us for any help and we won't bother asking any from you. Maybe your frustration is that your own country actually backs the US. You see when we go to war we usually end with an agrrement. When that country breaks that agreement it is cause for another war. One single bullet or flak fired at our planes covering the nofly zone was justification enough. In fact whenever the US decides to take out a tinned horned dictator all we need is approval from Congress.
I know you love to play parlor games in the UN, but you see in the US the UN is a big joke and not something to be taken seriously.

Last Edited : Friday, 1 July 2005 - 10:08

And let us not start another conflict by such loose use of the word kill. This site is a place to have fun!

Hi to all... and peace loving 2 u all...

i've been reading the posts around here, and am thinking that some things were misunderstood on some parts.

IMO when Mog talked about a "Burn Flag Day", as he states, whas in a figured way, to show the politicians (and all others i may be forgetting) how "discontent" the population is with them.

Ofcourse that Mog and i think all others, specially the ones who served, know that a National Flag, being it US, Australian or my own Portuguese, represents something for someone. And just for that it deserves respect.

BigAmigo served and had his oath has any servicemen around the world (with the exception at most of the Germans, who've added a few tidbits to the oath) to uphold his country's constitution, defend it and to follow it's elected goverment directions (i'm just talking about the democracies to simplify).

But it CAN be used in a figured way, to show how discontent one are.
If i'm not mistaken, there are reports of former CSA Officers, wearing CSA Battle Flags upside down (for naval people, this is a sign the request of help, if i'm not mistaken) after the end of the North American Civil War.
Or even in other places of the world, of black ribbons being tied to the Flags.

I'm a Portuguese citizen, and extremely proud of my country's history throughout the ages. Nor do i know of a coutry more free or even would i ever, and i really say ever, consider changing my nationality, even though i'm considering emigrating. But that doesn't mean that i like what successive goverments decisions regarding the future for my country (for me, they've been more afraid of losing representation in the next election then in solving problems) + a public function (that's what we call to govermental functionaries) that through goverment inaction is allowed to do it's job lazily, ineficiently and where through all that, a certain level of corruption is the base to have things done.

Regarding several positions that the US have taken at an International level, I will concede that the US, wrongly or rightly (in my opinion wrongly) have had the only strong position in the recent periods.

Why do I consider it a wrong position...
Beause nevertheless, if we want to do things and we should do things not to allow them to get worse, we have to have "reason" on our side. And for that was created the UN, now if the UN isn't working properly, we must examine the why's and deal with them...

I say "reason" and not "rightgeous", because we do often forget that being right, is just a perspective view.
And if things can't be definitely proved, then we can't rush in and smack the other guy, even though we know it's the right thing to do.

It would be the same has "frying" a guy in the electric chair, before he went to trial and was proven guilty, just we're sure that he did it.

A few last things about Iraq, before all i want to give my simpathy for the famillies of ALL who've lost people in there... and on both sides, most of them died believing in what they were doing, even if some would be on the side the majority of us think/knows is the wrong side.
But, though i know Iraq's people has a chance on democracy that was given by the US, i can't support the invasion of it, besides all the previous reasons, by a country that on several other similar ocasions decided to "close" it's eyes just because it was an ally of it.

Once again, i want to express my respect for the Americans and their nation as i do the same for all the other nations. After all they exist because it's people wasn't happy with how things were before.

If you all don't support a certain situation, you must act to prevent it. Be it through petitions, mobilizations, a call for a national referendum on it, etc..

The worst of all, is to talk against it but when the time comes when you can do anything about it, one doesn't do it.

izno,
I understand most of your position. I respect your reference to using reason. I will have more respect for it if you can answer a couple simple questions for me.

1) The US went to the UN, presented our case based on the best intelligence available with a position shared by at least a dozen countries, and got a unanimous resolution from the Security Council demanding that Saddam comply unconditionally with all inspections or there would be dire consequences. Saddam did not comply. Is that reason to depose him?

2) Many countries, including France and Russia, than wanted the US to go back to the Security Council and get a specific resolution saying that the dire consequences in the previous unanimous resolution really meant war. They planned to veto the resolution. This is because they had top politicians taking money from the UN Oil for Food program to support this effort against any sanction on Iraq and there were also many lucrative trade deals at stake for them. Is that reason to fix the UN or ignore the UN and fix the problem with Saddam thumbing his nose at the rule of international law?

If you have a position based on reason that is in opposition to this historical summary of events, I would be interested to hear it. If your response is based on righteousness, I will also find that interesting.
Cheers,
H.

hi there Hwatta,

I do think that u r right, i didn't say that both French and Russia was right... I even think that the "VETO" right that some coutries have, should be withdrawn... from all of them

Now, the UN must change their way of acting by being given authority to act independently. Ofcourse supervision would need to be enforced to check that the same UN weren't overstepping it's functions.
But 4 that, all and i say all countries must accept to follow those rules.
If not so, then there's no need to "actualize" the UN, 'cause there will always be people around who will say, "oh i don't agree, so i'm going to do how i like and so on".

Iraq's Gov at the time, was stalling, bluffing, etc..
OK, everyone saw that, as everyone saw pressure being putted into the same inspectors by some of the "allied" nations.

Yes, i will say that i feel that the world is safer without Saddam around AND yes, I was in favor of the invasion of Iraq IF the UN sanctioned it BUT while it didn't, I would be in favour of a support of Iraq's oposition so foment the overthrow of the Gov at the time. Utopic as that might have been.

Now probably you will tell me about how the same Gov did massacre or even more correctly genocide part of it's population, right?
My answer is... what was done at the time both by the UN and by the US? Both failed, and both failed in both situations...
One due to a lack of power to act without the support of 3rd parties, the other because at the time was "allied" of that particular gov.

More examples?
See Timor Leste or as it is now knows Timor Lorosae, invasion by Indonesia in 1975, fully supported by the US and Australia, wich were afraid of seeing it fall under a communist regime. And so, for that, was a people genocided 2... fortunately, it managed to grab enough support around to become independent... unfortunately, it didn't take the same time that Kuwait's invasion took (on which some documents even state that the Iraqui Gov had warned the US Gov of it's intended plans as did the Indonesian Gov do in '75).
Or why not the case of Northen Korea? where a madman as mad as Saddam is rulling in the same manner, for when the invasion of it?

Hwatta, the US acted, i do respect that, but i do think that it acted uncorrectly though... and it didn't take much to act in a propper way. We all know that the UN must, really must, be reformed. But can u picture the US accepting a UN decision if it goes against it's wishes?
How, with so much examples around, can you expect most to the world outside the US, which still are a majority to see the US acting on something just 'cause it thinks it's the "right" thing to do and not some "hidden" agenda?

One thing is we all fighting together for a better world, another thing is part of one side, be it more rightgeous or not, to say that i'm fed up and do things alone, and then hope to get out and let the other chumps to take the heat.
And in that particular case, yes the UN were right... and didn't pull in except in the humanitarian case.

As i think a great american once said, freedom is earned not given. Iraq now has a chance at being free, it was given them... let's hope that they can hold onto it.

Hwatta, once again... we're just talking it's how we grow right?

So, the answers that I am reading are:

For question 1) Yes, but only if the UN sanctioned it.

For question 2) I think you are saying we needed to wait to do anything about Saddam until the UN was reformed.

Follow-up questions:
1A) What did you think "serious consequences" meant? We would send a strongly worded letter? We would go have another debate in the Security Council and see if everybody REALLY meant "SERIOUS consequences"? What did you think the threat to Saddam was in resolution 1441?
-----
Background on 1441 from Wikipedia:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284), notably to provide "an accurate full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by Resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles". Resolution 1441 threatens "serious consequences" if these are not met. It reasserted demands that UN weapons inspectors should have "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to sites of their choosing, in order to ascertain compliance.
-----
Please note the words "FINAL opportunity"...not "penultimate opportunity"...not "nearly your almost final last chance"...FINAL opportunity.

2A) Even following the fiasco in Darfur, the Oil-for-Food scandal (involving the Secretary General himself now), and the UN "Peacekeepers" raping villagers they are supposed to protect, we face an uphill battle to make any reforms. How long would have been "reasonable" to wait? Forever? 5 years? 10 years? Until Zimbabwe says it's OK? What is your version on how long would have been reasonable? (I also acknowledge in advance that you might reconsider this entire objection based on 1A above if you are truly using reason...if so, you may skip 2A)

We can discuss all of the other additional issues you bring up later...I would like to concentrate on "reason" as you say instead of "righteousness" which is more subjective (although some of your other issues seem to be drifting in that direction).

This is a nice discussion. I love logic and reason...they are our friends!
Cheers,
H.

YOu got some good points IZ. I can respect your point as it is backed with facts. I may not agree 100%, but I can respect it. You do not say that the US is 100% wrong as others do.

I do think that Iraq may have been given freedom early, but now I think they are earning it. Though we do have daily casualty reports the Irqi citizens are loosing 100's weekly. They are paying for their freedom and I hope they do not so willing release it.

I seen no other option except the invasion of Iraq. Saddam would have never gave away his power, he could not be allowed to destroy the lives of innocient people. The case of WMD make no difference to me, there are other reasons to remove him from power. It should have been done in 1991, we had the forces in place necessary then. It would have saved many lives.

I do not share your respect or desire to see a UN. I have seen nothing in my lifetime (39 years), that shows me that such an unbiased organization can exist. I have seen corruption and cover ups just like any other government. I have the power to vote, I am willing to stake my security and my families lives on the power of a standing 200 year Democracy. I am not willing to do so on the opinions of the United Nations. I believe that a requirement of being in the UN must be that your nation is a democracy and support human and civil rights. I do not see why Syria and N Korea and such nations have earned the right to direct the world.

On the point of others that we have turned our backs on and not helped? We can't fight everybody everywhere by ourselves. If the free nations of the world would just realize that we now outnumber the problem countries and organizations, and we all stood together we could end these sort of tyrants one at a time. Now is not the time to box in your borders, now is the time to support freedom and human rights and civil rights around the world. Now is the time to demand it and if free elections and human rights are not achieved then we (the free world) should remove those that prevent freedom.

Hi there people,

Hwatta, don't get mad on me, i'm just telling u my opinion.

Yes, as u've said... in answer 1 as u say, yes i would have waited for a UN sanction. About ur second question, u've twisted my answer Hwatta... i didn't say to reform the UN when one decision IS needed, i said that reforming the UN must be done period, since the world is a always changing place, ofcourse that if it happens to be done, it will coincide with some events that will be happening at the time.

I do agree with Hwatta, when he says that a decision had to be made. I'll not go as far as saying that some coutries are corrupt as was intended (ok i may be also twisting the phrases), but will acknoledge that there was corruption involved, on both sides, after all... espionage amongst other also involve that.

I'll simplify things by stating that, some wanted to act on huches while others wanted definitive proves.
Iraq forced the US to act, or else it would seem that the US were losing "influence" on an international level. They did call up to see if u were bluffing, you weren't so i DO understand the why's, as i see that it was the US who've putted themselves on the position they were at the time.

IF u had managed to get ur hands on some hard evidence, it would still had left a taint on the Iraq invasion by the US, but it would have shutted up all the dissent from the other nations... the thing was, u didn't find anything, and even though u are helping a people attain it's democracy, the taint is much higher... and now i'll over react but will ask u to bear with this over reaction to try to better express a point of view...

now ur seen has a country who will invade a sovereign nation without the UN sanction, meaning by that, that u can invade a sovereign nation just for having a different opinion then the US... that almost anulates the image that the US had gain at '91 Desert Storm, when it went in to defend a country that had been invaded, not on the same principles ofcourse but by a nation that also didn't respect international law.

Hwatta, the US did see the image they were passing out, when they said that they didn't need the world to help... and then accepted some help from a few countries to help circunvent that image.

The Iraq invasion almost, in my opinion, killed the EU due to the position the UK took against the majority of the other nations in the EU. I think that, that action forced the way on which this present "constitution" is being put to vote by it's nations...
But though i know that Europe must unite in a single world, before we all decide to give more power ('cause it already as power) to a central goverment, we should decide which kind of European Union do we want.
I'm against the present constitution as is presented, so i'll vote NO, though they intend to pass the idea of "Vote YES, to show that u want a stronger EU, and afterwards we will decide which parts to change"... and i know that once instituted, a constitution is HELL to change
(I don't want a Federal Europe in the spitting image of the US, i think that the US work very well as they are, but not in Europe... due to several reasons, so i prefer a Confederate vision of the European Union).

To Big Amigo

Big, i do agree with most of what you said, specially with the '91 vision of removing Saddam... and i never understood why it wasn't done then. I also know that Iraq needed to be invaded, since has u say, he wouldn't step down, the but's have been expressed before so i won't repeat myself.

I do desire a UN that works, and that eventually all goverments can accept to work under it's guide... to utopic i know, but still every trekkie has to review himself in what i've just written, doesn't it?

... continuation...

My only disagreement with you, though not completely, is regarded to your last point about the "we can't fight by ourselves...".
Big... that's true, u can't... but still u've done it on some ocasions. And regarding several other ocasions, you've turned your eyes under the spell of "US interests".

So yes, all democratic nations should help... see the case of the Korea War in the 50's (though the UNat the time was almost "controlled" by the US, it acted has it should).
But when the other cases happen... when the US act AND acts in the way it did, without the support of the UN. It's easy to understand why everyone questions the US motives.

... continuation 2...

Sorry people for the mistakes, i've seen while reading my posts that i had make a few... so please forgive me...

(specially whe Europe unites in a "World" istead of a "country").

To Big Amigo, i had forget to say that, i do agree that the Iraquis are paying for their given "dream" of Democracy, so let's hope that they can hold on onto it... though the dream will be unfortunately but necessarilly be paid in blood.

Let's hope also that, all nations, do respect the path that the Iraquis follow in the future, being it a democratic path or to fall under a theological state as in Iran, IF chosen in democratic way ofcourse ... afterall to be free is to chose it's path right?

I personally find it idiotic to respect Iraq if it chooses to be a theocratic state like Iran. My model for nation building is what we did with Japan and Germany after WWII. We pretty much wrote their Constitution. I think a mistake the US has made in the current situation was having a mindset that we were only fighting Saddam. Could you imagine in WW2 a mind set that we were only fighting Hitler or the Japanese Emperor and not the German people ect. Also could you imagine that after WW2 we allowed a democratic process where the national socialist could be elected to power again.

izno,
I am not mad at you. I'm very sorry if it seems that way. I am just trying to see how far reason can actually take us in a discussion.

You have not yet answered 1A: Based on the text of resolution 1441 that was passed unanimously, gave Saddam specific demands that he failed to meet, stated there would be "serious consequences" if he failed, and stated that it was his "final opportunity"...what else was required in your opinion for a UN sanction to exist? Do these words have meaning or not? (My view is that there was a UN sanction...based on logic, reason, and the words of the resolution. Of course, Kofi and many others disagree.)

The evidence or lack of evidence found after the fact really had nothing to do with our decisions and actions...they do make Saddam's defiance instead of cooperation with the inspectors seem really odd...unless he really believed those he had bribed in France and elsewhere would be able to protect him from the US...or he sent his WMD stockpiles to Syria.

Finguld,
I agree with you on this one 100%. I think it will be very interesting to see what type of constitution they end up with. If it is not acceptable, I think there will be real problems. All of the things we have done cannot be for no gain in real freedom in the region.
Cheers,
H.

to Hwatta... no prob, the thing is... u write in a way, that might lead to understand that has i've said no prob.

Regarding that resolutionm u r right Hwatta, has i've always said... the UN should have voted to invade Iraq, the thing is... they didn't, and how can a nation pass over a world organization to which it has accepted to work with?
u can say that the Supreme court is wrong, as this thread was started, and try to find ways to change it's resolution, but it must be done in a legal basis, or else where will democracy end?

Now to Finguld...
Finguld, what u r saying is that the world should be a "cover" of the US.

Or let me express myself in another way... you want to impose your view of democracy onto other peoples, even IF they don't wish so.
IMO by so, you will be killing the very idea of democracy.

Democracy is the rule of the people by the people.

Now what IF that people decide to follow another path? if it was chosen in a democratic way, who am I to say that they can't follow it and impose them my personal belief?

We're talking of cultures different from what is commonly designed has "western culture", though even in those i do find discrepancies. And about imposing our "views" onto those different cultures with different backgrounds.

It can't be done just like that, for mentalities to evolve they must be influenced and then wish to change in their own pace.

See Persia's example, with the Shah Rehza Pahlevi tryin to bring its people into the westerner lap, by introducing mass reforms onto it's own people and culture.
This led to the formation of a strong oposition from a milenar people, that was seeing it's own culture becoming subjugated to foreign one.
That people turned to the more conservative movements of the land... it's Clerical movements.
Persia fell due to it's own goverment fault.
Change CAN'T be forced, it nevertheless can be incentivated, has there ARE reformists movements in present Iran, though they are having it's decisions curbed... only time will tell if the Iranian people will decide to find a mid term between modernization and cultural assimilation.

I'll not talk about the Post War Japan or Germany, but i'll talk about the Post War Italy elections.

Now, there the US invested heavilly in political campaigns for some parties besides other things, to avoid the Post War Italy to fall under a Socialist Regime, note that Italy still IS the present "western" european nation where the socialist party simpathisers have the biggest percentage.

NOW that must be how democracy works in your point of view, and though i'm not saying that the socialist regime is better (i don't believe in "ist's"), since u think that meddling in other nations decisions IS defending democracy (Your democracy I mean), perhaps we should just apply to be incorporated into the US as States and be done with it.

Sorry for my criticism Finguld, but i don't think that by banning a ideology, being it as evil as it can be, that u'll "wipe" it from existance.

After all, and though "evil" ideologies exists everywhere you don't need to come to Europe or any other place to find it, just need to look onto yourselves

Well as I pointed out Germany and Japan were forced to change. In fact look at Iraq itself. How do you think it became muslim? I will tell you it was conquered and changed. I think when the US wars a country and defeats it it should impose rules on that country that it sees fit. It has worked in the past and it can work now.

Now with your example of Persia or Iran. I think if we had a different leader at the time instead of the abject failure of Carter circumstances could of easily been changed. The communists use to have a phrase for those in the west that helped them. "useful idiots" Now I think that term can be used in other situations as well.

I don't think there is anybody who does not want to be free.

I had to edit this becuase that attitude really is just an excuse for doing nothing. You cant impose freedom on people, that just dont happen. You impose dictatorships and hate.

Last Edited : Sunday, 3 July 2005 - 23:35

Japan attacked the US and we had a perfect right to retaliate from a military attack. Germany declared war on us when Japan attacked.

As I remember it, Saddam was our useful puppet regime until he decided he wanted more oil than we wanted him to have, so he took Kuwait, a former province of Iraq, given to a monarchy for oil concessions. We rightly got world support to stop this aggression.

Bush senior didn't take Iraq because that was not in the mandate from the allied nations, and I think he knew full well what it entailed. A grisly war and occupation.

Saddam never attacked the USA. He was not responsible for 9/11 as the administration has openly admitted.

He was a powerful, evilminded dictator and we never should have supported him in the first place. However, deposing him was a prime reason for taking Iraq. It was not to make Iraq a western democracy. No one has the right to enforce their beliefs and culture on another just because they are powerful enough to do so,

Iraq will most likely never be a democracy in the way other countries are, their religious beliefs nearly forbid it. they can have some form of representative government if they choose, but I suspect they, like Iran, would opt for a Theocratically based system.

We couldn't enforce our culture on Viet Nam and had to leave. This is also what will happen in Iraq, except that the US will probably not ever give up its airbases in Iraq willingly, too strategic.

Democracy springs from free people, it doesn't make them free. They were free first! Then they chose a form of government, not the other way around. Iraq is hardly "free" right now, with a huge occupying army drawing insurgents from the entire region. When we leave, the people there will most likely have to endure another corrupt American puppet as the Vietnamese did. Then they might grow a pair and take over and run their own affairs. We'll see...

Mog, I don't really see much of anything in that post that isn't just plain made up.

Read a book.

Jesus, big. You're not that stupid, why do always act like you are?